Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 N.C. App. 74

State v. Nettles

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 28, 1973

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1973-11-28

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1978

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Barbour · State v. Hunt · State v. Guffey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-11-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BALEY, Judge.

¶1Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the credibility of witnesses and on his failure to testify. No request was made for these instructions. “ ‘Where the charge fully instructs the jury on all substantive features of the case, defines and applies the law thereto, and states the contention of the parties, it complies with G.S. 1-180, and a party desiring further elaboration on a particular point ... or a charge on a subordinate feature of the case, must aptly tender request for special instruction.’ ” State v. Hunt, 283 N.C. 617, 623, 197 S.E. 2d 513, 517; accord, State v. Guffey, 265 N.C. 331, 144 S.E. 2d 14; State v. Garrett, 5 N.C. App. 367, 168 S.E. 2d 479, cert. denied, 276 N.C. 85.

¶2It is proper for the judge to charge the jury on the credibility of witnesses, in the absence of a request for such an instruction, but it is not mandatory that he do so. State v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E. 2d 606; State v. Hardee, 6 N.C. App. 147, 169 S.E. 2d 533.

¶3In the same way, the court is not required to give an instruction on the defendant’s failure to testify when there has been no request for such an instruction. In fact, “[o]rdi-narily, it would seem better to give no instruction concerning a defendant’s failure to testify unless such an instruction is *76requested by defendant.” State v. Barbour, 278 N.C. 449, 457, 180 S.E. 2d 115, 120.

¶4No error.

Judges Britt and Morris concur.
/20/ncapp/74 · .json · Public domain